PANAYIOTOU [2026] WASC 6 (9 January 2026)

1. At the conclusion of her decision, the Acting Principal Registrar indicated that, should Mr Panayioutou be dissatisfied with her decision, he could seek to have the decision reviewed pursuant to s 171(4) of the Act.
2. Mr Panayioutou purported to commence a review application by emailing a completed RSC form 67A to the registry, being a form used to commence an application for judicial review under O 56 r 2 of the RSC.
3. However, in circumstances where no such application was properly filed in accordance with the RSC, I treated Mr Panayioutou's application as having been brought pursuant to s 171(4) of the Act consistent with the Acting Principal Registrar's intimation.

1. As Mr Panyioutou properly accepted, the only issue arising for determination is whether the registrar had power to order that the fee applicable to the proposed appeal notice could be waived in full.
2. The answer to this question turns on a proper construction of the Fees Regulations.
3. For the reasons which follow, I consider the answer to be 'no'.

1. The Fees Regulations are made pursuant to s 171(1) of the Act which provides as follows:
   1. Fees, regulations may prescribe

(1) The Governor may make regulations providing for or prescribing the fees to be paid -

(a) when commencing a cause or matter; and

(b) when entering a cause or matter for trial or at any other stage of proceedings in a cause or matter; and

(c) when lodging a document with the Court or depositing a will or instrument under section 44 of the Wills Act 1970; and

(d) for the issue of any document by the Court; and

(e) for the service of any document; and

(f) in respect of the conduct of the business of any office of or connected with the Court; and

(g) for the carrying out of any order or warrant of the Court.

1. On their face, the Fees Regulations reflect a scheme which contemplates, subject to exceptions, the payment of fees in respect of the matters specified in s 171(1).
2. Regulation 4(1) is a central feature of the scheme. It provides that, subject to the provisions of the regulations, the fees specified in sch 1, 2 and 3 of the Fees Regulations 'are to be charged'[1] in respect of the matters referred to in s 171(1) of the Act in relation to which they are specified.
3. One of the 'matters' so specified is, relevantly, the filing of a notice of appeal. In this connection, item 1(b) of sch 1 of the Fees Regulations provides that the applicable fee to file such a notice is:

(a) $1,960.00 for an 'individual or eligible entity';[2]

(b) $3,820.00 for an 'entity';[3] and

(c) $100.00 for an 'eligible individual'.[4]

1. The expression 'eligible individual' is defined, in reg 3, by reference to reg 7(2). The expression relevantly includes 'an individual who ... a registrar has directed is an eligible individual under regulation 8A(1)': reg 7(2)(f).
2. Reg 8A(1) in turn provides:

8A. Recognition as eligible individual or eligible entity

(1) On an application under regulation 8(1)(a) the Court or a registrar may direct that a person is an eligible individual described in regulation 7(2)(f) if satisfied that the person should be required to pay only an eligible individual fee in respect of the matter for either, or both, of the following reasons -

(a) financial hardship;

(b) the interests of justice.

(2) On an application under regulation 8(1)(b) the Court or a registrar may direct that a person is an eligible entity described in regulation 7(3)(b) if satisfied that the person should be required to pay only an eligible entity fee in respect of the matter for either, or both, of the following reasons -

(a) financial hardship;

(b) the interests of justice.

1. Regulation 3 defines the expression 'eligible individual fee', in relation to a matter specified in an item in sch 1, to mean the fee, if any, shown in column C for that item.[5]
2. Regulation 8 provides:
   1. Application to be recognised as eligible individual or eligible entity

(1) A person may apply for -

(a) a direction under regulation 8A(1) that, in respect of a matter specified in Schedule 1, the person is an eligible individual described in regulation 7(2)(f); or

(b) a direction under regulation 8A(2) that, in respect of a matter specified in Schedule 1, the person is an eligible entity described in regulation 7(3)(b).

(2) An application is to be in the form of Schedule 4 Form 2 and is to specify -

(a) for an individual - the matter in respect of which the individual is seeking to pay the eligible individual fee; or

(b) for an entity - the matter in respect of which the entity is seeking to pay the eligible entity fee.

(3) Despite anything else in these regulations, a fee is not to be charged in respect of an application under subregulation (1).

1. As noted earlier, the registrar's order of 24 December 2025 stated that the filing fee applicable to Mr Panayioutou's proposed appeal notice be reduced to $100 'pursuant to regulation 8A(2)(a) of the [Fees Regulations]'.
2. Given the procedural history and Mr Panayioutou's status as an individual I infer that the reference to reg 8A(2)(a) was intended as a reference to reg 8A(1)(a).

1. Not all documents or matters required to be dealt with in the court or by its officers require the payment of a fee.
2. For example, reg 5(3)(a) provides that a person is not required to pay a fee in respect of a matter if 'a written law provides that the person is not required to pay a fee in respect of a matter of that type'.
3. In addition, regulations 4(3), 4(5), 5(2), 5(3)(b) and 5(3)(c) refer to several other circumstances in which a fee is not to be charged,[6] where the Fees Regulations do not apply,[7] or where a person is not required to pay a fee in respect of a matter.[8]
4. However, Mr Panayioutou neither identified any provision of the kind contemplated by reg 5(3)(a) nor suggested that any of the circumstances mentioned in any of regulations 4(3), 4(5), 5(2), 5(3)(b) or 5(3)(c) were here engaged.

1. According to Mr Panyioutou, reg 8(3) of the Fees Regulations affords a 'pathway' to a construction that the registrar enjoyed power to waive in full the fee otherwise payable for the filing of the proposed appeal notice.
2. As noted earlier, reg 8(3) provides that '[d]espite anything else in these regulations, a fee is not to be charged in respect of an application under [reg 8(1)]'.[9]
3. The focus of Mr Panyioutou's submission, as I understood it, was on the words 'a fee is not to be charged'.
4. However, those words are immediately followed by the words 'in respect of an application under [reg 8(1)]'.
5. As will be recalled reg 8(1) only concerns an application for a direction under reg 8A that a person is an 'eligible individual' or 'eligible entity'.
6. It follows that the purpose of reg 8(3) is limited to ensuring no fee is imposed for a potential party to be considered an 'eligible person' or 'eligible entity'. Regulation 8(3) is therefore of no assistance in supporting a construction to the effect that the Fees Regulations confer a power to reduce the fee prescribed for filing an appeal notice to zero.

1. At the end of the day, the Fees Regulations must be construed having regard to their text, context and purpose, with the regulations being read as a whole.[10]
2. As noted earlier, reg 4(1) among other things provides that, subject to the provisions of the Fee Regulations, the fees specified in sch 1, 2 and 3 are to be charged.[11]
3. Reg 4(1) is immediately followed by reg 4(2) which states that in relation to an item in sch 1:[12]

(a) the fee payable by an individual who is not an eligible individual is the fee shown in column A for that item; or

(b) the fee payable by an eligible individual is the eligible individual fee for that item; or

(c) the fee payable by an entity that is not an eligible entity is the fee shown in column B for that item; or

(d) the fee payable by an eligible entity is the eligible entity fee for that item.

1. The peremptory nature of the italicised words in the above extracts, read with regs 7, 8 and 8A, in my view supports a construction to the effect that:

(1) The policy underpinning the Fee Regulations is that the fee (if any) specified in sch 1 must be paid save in circumstances where the regulations provide otherwise.

(2) The only power which the court or a registrar has to reduce the fee (if any) payable by an individual is by directing that the individual is an 'eligible individual' as described in reg 7(2)(f), thereby allowing them to pay the relevant reduced fee (if any) specified in column C of sch 1.

1. Such a construction is, in my view, also supported by:

(1) Other provisions in the Fees Regulations including reg 6(2) which expressly permits the court or a registrar to direct that the payment of the whole or part of a fee or fees in respect of a claim for personal injuries be deferred.

(2) The fact that the word 'waive' only appears once in the Fee Regulations, namely in reg 8D, which in turn permits the court or a registrar to waive a fee payable with respect to the obtaining of the transcript or copies of certain documents, if satisfied that doing so 'would assist in the efficient operation of the Court'.

1. I also note that when first introduced,[13] the Fee Regulations included a provision[14] which had afforded plenary power to the court or a registrar to, 'in a particular case for special reasons, including financial hardship, direct ... (a) that a fee ... be waived or reduced ...'[15]
2. However, this provision was removed by Pt 10 of the Attorney General Regulations Amendment (Fees) Regulations 2016[16] when, relevantly:

(a) reg 7 of the Fees Regulations was amended so as to read substantially in its current form; and

(b) the notions of 'eligible individual' and 'eligible entity' were introduced.

1. In my view, this historical context lends yet further support to the construction reflected in paragraph 36 above.

1. For the foregoing reasons, I consider that the registrar did not enjoy the power to order that the fee applicable to the filing of the proposed appeal notice could be waived in full.
2. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[5] Regulation 3, definition of 'eligible individual fee'.

[10] Project Blue Sky Inv v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 [69]; Plaintiff S4/2014 v Minister for Immigration [2014] HCA 34; (2014) 253 CLR 219 [42].

[13] Western Australian Government Gazette No 253 (27 December 2001).

[14] i.e. former reg 7(1), which in substance echoed a power previously reflected in former O 83A of the RSC (as to which see Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd v Knee (WASC, Templeman C, Lib No 8622, 7 December 1999).

[15] Fees Regulations, former reg 7(1). Emphasis added.

[16] Western Australian Government Gazette No 95 (14 June 2016).